Bob Ringma

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-77. Part of the blame has already been put today on the Bloc Quebecois. You could also argue that they did not act as a national party nor in the interests of Canada, and that they only have the interests of Quebec at heart. Personally, I would blame the government far more than the Bloc.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Vancouver Quadra that there is a fair bit in what he says. Responsibility can be attributed to the prior government and its minister and the Prime Minister.

It goes beyond that. I could carry that argument further and say we must. We have proposed that the House be involved in the decisions to deploy Canadian troops, that we must do that. It is a good point and well made. Beyond that there are other areas.

There are continuing problems. There is a problem even in Somalia with the leadership of the Canadian forces. Therefore I have to attribute part of the blame to the government of the day for not taking hold of these problems and saying: "What can we do about them?" Let us get them out in the open. Let us clarify them. Let us not condemn the people who are innocent in this process.

Yes, there is something to what the member says. Some blame can be attributed to the previous government, but also to this current government. It has to get on with rectifying things.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, through this motion and the debates herein, Reform is trying to tell the government and the people of Canada there are weaknesses appearing in many areas of the Department of

National Defence. The government's reaction to these faults is not good enough. We are saying that its leadership is inadequate and so is its management.

Let us look at the airborne regiment. I applaud the fact that the inquiry is finally underway. It should have taken place long ago. There has been ample evidence since the government has been in power to indicate there was something wrong in the regiment. Why did it let it fester?

If the government had launched an inquiry a year ago it would have spared us all a lot of misery and would have spared the sullying of the reputations of many fine people.

The government did not act. As late as September last the minister said no to holding an inquiry. If an inquiry had been held, as we advocated, Major Armstrong, a Canadian forces medical officer, would have testified and had an outlet for his pent up concerns. The result would have been no adverse publicity for the forces. By the same token, it is probable we would not have had to go through the public video agony as these also would have found outlet in the inquiry. The government is not doing things in the proper order.

While we are on the subject of the airborne regiment, I would like to use that situation to underline why our motion in part condemns the government's failure to hold senior officials accountable for command and control shortcomings and deteriorating morale. It started with Private Kyle Brown instead of starting at the top.

I cannot believe the command structure of the Canadian forces did not know for quite some time there were problems in the airborne. I presume the Létourneau inquiry will identify the degree to which senior personnel were aware of and responsible for the deteriorating situation. Welcome as the inquiry is, it is too late to save the reputations of hard working professional soldiers and too late to save a fine regiment.

Let us look at the defence review. Once again we laud the government for taking the initiative to open up discussions in the House on defence matters and for conducting a defence review. Here again the government had it backwards. The review of our foreign policy should have come first. Defence policy is a function of foreign policy.

The other problem is that the government is not paying attention to what is being said. There is no point in having a defence review if we ignore some of its findings. Four examples have been ignored; personnel cuts to the forces, the budget cut 6,700 more than the review recommended.

Cuts to the defence budget, headquarters staff cuts, a study of the reorganization of national defence headquarters, creation of a standing joint committee on defence, review of capital expenditures over $30 million before a proposed committee, an annual review by the minister, an annual debate of defence policy by Parliament-these things recommended duly by the committee appointed have been ignored. We heard nothing about them.

Let us look at base closures and the rationalisation of DND's infrastructure. Once again I compliment the government on its gumption in getting on with the job. Many of this minister's predecessors have found it too politically difficult a task to take on.

My complaints with the government methodology are now confined to the apparent lack of planning that went into the decision to close the bases at Calgary and Chilliwack. Since this has already been covered today by my colleagues, I will leave it at that.

On my own turf national defence is closing the Nanaimo army camp. The community, as it seems typical for the west, has pretty much accepted this partly because it could bring positive things along with it in using the land for other purposes.

According to what I hear, resulting from the first negotiating meeting that took place this week with the community, national defence's primary interest is not the community. It is selling the land at market value and is concerned about native land claims. That is the highest priority on its list. That does not make the city of Nanaimo and surrounding areas too enthusiastic.

Let us look at morale in the department and in the Canadian forces. We had Colonel Oehring's report in December. He was mainly discussing a morale problem which he summed up as a loss of confidence and trust. Without these an army cannot operate. Colonel Oehring talked about an increasingly impotent military leadership and an uncaring system. He cites the widening gap between leaders and the led. He states the crisis of confidence must be at least acknowledged at the highest levels, and that is not being done. He believes it will take a public commitment by the Minister of National Defence, even the Prime Minister, to restore soldiers' lost and destroyed confidence.

What has the minister done to restore this confidence? The latest report dated March 1995 comes from Brigadier General Jeffries at Petawawa, whose assessment after consulting all of his commanding officers was that morale for the moment is in large part satisfactory, but that there is widespread dissatisfaction at virtually all rank levels.

Part of this dissatisfaction is directly attributable to the highest levels of leadership and management in the department and in the Canadian forces. At this level we want more from our soldiers than we are prepared to pay for. Here too, as in other things, we are living beyond our means. The soldiers' perception is that their interests and welfare are being sacrificed so that senior leaders can be successful in delivering the same bang for a much less buck.

Resolution of this problem must start at the very top. What is the minister doing about the morale and leadership in the department and in the Canadian forces?

Other things are amiss besides morale and leadership and there is no evidence that anything is being done. We hear reports of financial excesses by senior officers, reports of excessive expenditures on furniture and living allowances. What is being done? How does the ordinary soldier feel about his sacrifices, about his having to moonlight when his superiors spend irresponsibly?

What about the unanswered questions regarding former deputy minister Bob Fowler? There is a long list of questions which the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs did not deal with earlier this week. The air should be cleared on matters like this: here are the allegations, answer them. If Mr. Fowler has done nothing wrong, let everyone know about it.

The Reform motion today condemns the government for decisions which have diminished Canada's defence posture; decisions like the EH-101 helicopter. We could spend a day on that one. There is CFB Cornwallis, the size of the Canadian forces, the reserves. What is going to happen to the militia?

There is a long list of problems to address and it is not happening. Or if they are being addressed, then Parliament and the Canadian people are not hearing about it. When the airborne inquiry is over, we need a new inquiry, a broadly based, broadly scoped inquiry to be put in its place to address all of the things we have been looking at.

[Reform Party Leader, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Les éditions des Plaines, in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, for publishing a book on the Reform Party leader, Mr. Preston Manning. We welcome the initiative of that publishing house, which followed up on a request made by French-speaking Canadians interested in finding out more about the Reform leader and his ideas.

On behalf of the Reform leader, I thank the publishing house for its objectivity and hope that the community of Saint-Boniface, as well as all French-speaking Canadians, will enjoy some good reading.

We understand from Les éditions des Plaines that it was responding to a demand from French speaking Canadians and is encouraged that more francophones are demonstrating a willingness to inform themselves about the Reform Party and our leader.

We wish Annette St. Pierre and her publishing house the best of luck and a good read to the community of St. Boniface and French speaking Canadians all over.

[Translation]

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

In response, Madam Speaker, I have to say first that we have a long road ahead of us before we get our fiscal house in order.

We are well aware of the situation. We are still $560 billion in debt. The deficit reduction program introduced in the latest budget is inadequate to cope with the situation. We are paying more and ever more money into servicing that debt. In two to three years time with the Minister of Finance rolling the moving target, we are still going to be in deep trouble if in fact we have not hit the wall before then.

I have to negate the argument "in time". I do not know when that time is going to come.

My second point in response would be that essentially the hon. member is living in the past. I concede that the CBC in times gone by has furnished part of the glue that has held the country together.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, in addressing the motion on funding for the CBC brought forward by our honourable Bloc colleague, it is passing strange that this motion on a supply day should take place when we have almost a national crisis on our hands with the rail strike. I do not see how talking about the CBC is of any import alongside that problem. Nevertheless, here we are faced with it today.

I will paraphrase the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata when she addressed a Reform motion on the CBC last June. She said although the Reform Party may disagree emphatically with the way certain situations are dealt with at the CBC, it does not support the motion presented by the Bloc member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

If we look at the history of the CBC we see it was the genesis of the Aird commission in 1929, although it did not officially become the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation until Mackenzie King's Liberals rewrote the Broadcasting Act in 1936. The last revision of the Broadcasting Act came in 1991 under Brian Mulroney's Tories.

However, over that time the mandate of both French and English CBC has remained relatively unchanged. Is it possible for a mandate nearly 60 years old to still be valid, particularly in an age of technological change such as we have now?

The forerunner of the CBC, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, suffered from underfunding, an uncertain mandate and inappropriate administrative arrangements. The same is true in part of the CBC today.

If we look at these problems separately, we must first address the issue of underfunding. We know Canadian taxpayers cannot afford to increase the roughly $1 billion in subsidies the CBC already enjoys. The Liberals' answer was to pass legislation for the CBC to borrow money. This is certainly not the answer, as it only increases Canada's already enormous debt load.

The Liberals have also considered taxes on things like video rentals and movie tickets to fund the CBC. This is also unacceptable, as Canadians are already overtaxed. Therefore the only solution would appear to be privatization to allow the corporation to become competitive and raise funds through the private sector by means such as increased advertising. There is no reason the CBC does not have the capacity to compete commercially.

The second problem of an uncertain mandate can best be illustrated by looking at how Canadian politicians view the role of the CBC. Last June in the House the Prime Minister said: "The law says in defining the mandate of the CBC that it must inform people on the advantages Canada represents. This is the reason for the creation of the corporation".

One day later on CBC radio the Deputy Prime Minister stated the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a responsibility to acknowledge that one of its responsibilities is to promote Canadian unity.

Neither of these interpretations reflects the reality of the CBC mandate which is to provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains, and to reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences while serving the special needs of those regions.

While this example points to part of the problem with the uncertainty with the CBC's mandate, it also illustrates the way a public broadcasting service can become politicized and even manipulated by its political masters. I believe privatization could address this problem as market forces would quickly force the CBC to find its niche while still promoting Canadian culture. It would also remove the potential for political interference.

The final problem that existed with the CRBC 60 years ago and is still relevant for today's CBC is inappropriate administrative arrangements. The CBC receives more than $1 billion in taxpayers' money to operate yet still has a deficit of $45 million in its operating budget. In the last year about 2,000 jobs have been cut at the CBC in an effort to become more competitive. Despite these drastic cuts to the staffing budget, CBC's deficit continues to grow. There is simply no incentive at the administrative level to ensure a healthy bottom line.

Privatization appears to be the only acceptable method of dragging the mother corp into the fiscal realities of the 1990s and beyond.

Let us look specifically at the CBC French operations of Radio-Canada. A recent news report suggests that up to 750 of the 2,500 employees at SRC may be cut as a result of funding cuts. The vice-president of French television, Michèle Fortin, admitted in the same article: "Those who will suffer most from probable cuts are not viewers. We can supply to the public programs of the same quality and content if we purchase them from private producers or other networks".

If that is truly the case, and we have no reason to doubt Mr. Fortin, then what is this ominous threat looming over the CBC's French language network which my hon. Bloc colleagues are so concerned about?

We should also look at an independent survey conducted by the CROP polling firm in October of last year. In that survey, French speaking Quebecers stated that the quality of programming on privately operated TVA was equal to that of government funded Radio-Canada. In fact, in all areas the respondents rated the two stations equal.

However, when asked if: "Because Radio-Canada is subsidized and the other networks are not, that creates unfair competition", 56 per cent of French speaking Quebecers agreed while only 39 per cent said no.

Similarly, when French speaking Quebecers, many of whom we might presume are Bloc supporters, were asked if Radio-Canada's public funding should be cut because of the federal government's deficit problems, 55 per cent said yes while only 37 per cent disagreed. They are roughly the same percentages.

The same arguments I presented for the privatization of English language CBC are relevant to French CBC. The only way to ensure a viable Radio-Canada into the 21st century is to make the operation responsive to market forces and to take advantage of modern satellite technology.

For example, CBUF-FM, the CBC's French language FM radio station in Vancouver, has a staff of 25 and an annual budget of $2.2 million. Its average audience in any given quarter hour over its entire broadcast area is 100 people. That is according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement.

The same is true of Edmonton's French language station CHFA which has a staff of 32 and an annual budget of $2.4 million. Again, according to BBM figures, the station is fortunate if its audience tops 600.

In just these two examples we see how $4.6 million in tax dollars are being spent to service 700 people. That is almost $6,600 per listener. This is not very efficient.

If these services were privatized and forced to depend on local advertising it is quite likely they would be forced to close. However, with the advent of modern satellite technology it is quite possible to maintain a small staff of reporters in both markets that would provide local stories and features via satel-

lite to be included in regional and national programming. This would not only save taxpayers millions of dollars but would also allow Radio-Canada to fulfil its mandate and get out to the people of a minority language where it is needed.

The time for bleeding heart motions such as the one before us today is over. We must address today's situations based on today's realities, not some teary eyed, romanticized vision based on the way we did things in the good old days. Times have changed.

Today's fiscal realities will undoubtedly mean restraint and government downsizing. However, tomorrow's technology means we have an opportunity to provide government services and information in ways politicians of even 15 years ago never dreamed.

For this reason I urge the House to vote against this near-sighted motion of yesteryear and leap into the 21st century by listening closely to the ideas my Reform colleagues and I have and will present during the course of the debate.

[Petitioners, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the second petition asks that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitioners, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. The first calls upon Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides for the inclusion of the phrase "sexual orientation".

[Journée Internationale De La Francophonie, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as critic of the Reform Party for official languages, I am pleased to commemorate this Journée internationale de la francophonie.

The Reform Party recognizes how much the French-speaking population has contributed to the development of our great country, which continues to be enriched by them. Conscious of that fact, the Reform Party supports the principle of using English and French within key federal institutions such as Parliament and the Supreme Court. We also support the right of

all Canadians to speak in either of these two beautiful languages.

By being part of an organization like the Francophonie, Canada maintains relations with 46 other member states having a combined population of 400 million people. As a member of this organization, Canada can play an active role at the international level, whether it is in technological and medical breakthroughs in some African countries or in promoting democracy in certain Caribbean states such as Haiti.

Although this international co-operation offers limitless opportunities, we must remain conscious of our responsibilities towards taxpayers.

In this regard, most Canadians support our efforts to restore democracy in Haiti. However, there are those who question the $9 million spent by the Agence de coopération culturelle et technique in French-speaking countries, as well as the $7 million allocated to the implementation of projects and development activities agreed upon at the Francophonie summits.

What we have to do, in fact, is balance our responsibilities towards our partners in French speaking countries and those towards Canadian taxpayers. This is a difficult exercise which warrants special attention. On behalf of the Reform Party, I congratulate francophones all over Canada and around the world on this day celebrating the Francophonie. I would also like to take this opportunity to challenge the government: Let us hope that it will be bold enough to ensure some balance between its commitments to this alliance and its responsibilities towards taxpayers.

[Petitions, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions, both on the subject of firearms control.

The first petition asks that Parliament support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime. It also asks to support new legislation that recognizes and protects the rights of law-abiding citizens. It further asks that legislation be supported that will repeal and modify existing gun controls which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective.

The second petition on the same general subject area asks Parliament not to enact any further firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in council.